neurover_reset_context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is already communicated. The description usefully adds the actual effect — past messages are forgotten — but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the reset can be undone, or why the confirm flag must be supplied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and follows with the consequence. No filler, though it is short enough that the missing operational detail is a gap rather than a virtue.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter mutation with a required boolean guard and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits what confirm does, what happens to existing state, and what a successful response signals. An agent could call it, but not confidently or safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the schema supplies names and types only. The description implicitly points at modelId ('выбранной модели') and workflowId ('чат полотна'), but never explains confirm=true or the optional account parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description has a concrete verb and object ('Сбросить контекст выбранной модели в чате полотна') and adds a clarifying gloss of what reset means ('модель «забывает» прошлые сообщения'). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not name related tools such as neurover_model_settings or neurover_delete_node.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: no mention of prerequisites, of how to pick the target model, or of alternatives for clearing state. The agent must infer the trigger condition purely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.